D&D 5E As a Player, why do you play in games you haven't bought into?

[Crimson Longinus]

Two things: A game in which everyone is a Samurai sounds like a fun game, but it's also something that you'd have to fight the system against in D&D, given that it's designed to be played with a variety of classes. I'd much rather use Pendragon for this (or of course for the previously mentiond king Arthur game) as a game of this sorts creates particular challenges and I'd want a system designed to deal with them.

On the other hand, I've never really gotten the whole pushback against any restrictions. Why is such a big deal if I say no Warlocks in my game, but no one cares that you can't play a Vulcan? What you can play is always much more restricted than what you can conceive.

Restrictions are absolutely fine, the GM just needs to communicate them clearly and I feel most issues arose from this not happening. "You can't be an elf, because there are no elves in this setting" is perfectly clear. "Religion is important in this campaign" is not a clear if the intent was to communicate that all characters must be religious!

 

[ph0rk]

That's a red flag to me: if a player can't divorce what the character feels, thinks and does from what the player feels, thinks and does; and can't play character as different from self.

It depends.

If you want to, say, run a piracy game where the ship the players are on is essentially a slave ship - players would be right to bristle.

Maybe the player is a person who recently left the LDS church or similar, and doesn't want to play a theistic character a that moment?

Far better to have a handful of broad themes and poll the players to see which ones have more consensus interest - and really - why, precisely couldn't one play a nonbeliever in the game? What's the hard mechanical or narrative reason why?

Restrictions are absolutely fine, the GM just needs to communicate them clearly and I feel most issues arose from this not happening. "You can't be an elf, because there are no elves in this setting" is perfectly clear. "Religion is important in this campaign" is not a clear if the intent was to communicate that all characters must be religious!

100% this. "Religion is important" could mean many things - like a campaign where the organized religion in the area is burning witches or similar - the players are free to design characters that believe whatever they like there - but they likely suspect there will be a powerful organized religion institution playing a major role.

 

[Lanefan]

Yep. I’d leave any table where the DM had the attitude being displayed in the OP and by many replies. The whole attitude of “the DM sets down a campaign brief and if a player doesn’t like or isn’t interested in some part of it, there is no compromise or room for modification, that player should just leave” is BS. Sounds like a terrible game, regardless of the specific campaign premises.

Given as the DM may well have spent a year or more putting that campaign and-or setting together before even starting to recruit players I'd say she's well within her rights to largely say "my way or the highway" when it comes to setting-based questions. You want to play an Elf in a setting that has none? See ya. You want to play a Viking Thor Cleric in a setting that has no Norse culture in it anywhere? At best it'd be a one-off from off world, but most likely: see ya.

In my experience players are almost always very accepting of hard bans like this. Where the problems always arise is when there's any ambiguity or gray area, such as the 'religion must be important' example.

That said, there's a corollary area where DMs do sometimes run aground, and that's the concept of "if it can exist as an NPC and that NPC is the same as it'd be were it a book-legal PC, I should be able to play one". For example, if PC-style Wizards exist in the setting the DM had better have an ironclad-solid reason why they're banned as PCs.

Another thing that IME never raises any concern are temporary restrictions. For example, in my current campaign I made everyone start with Human PCs only, and made it clear up front that PCs of other races could come in once the party/story moved out of the Human-only land the campaign started in. Players were 100% on board with it.

 

[TheSword]

Why can't a knight be a nonbeliever? There may be repercussions for being a heretic, but a heretic that keeps it to themselves (until they don't have to) just makes for a good story.

Also: Merlin was totes not a believer. Nor were, I suspect, Morgana Le Fay nor her bastard son Mordred.

If, of course, your noble knights castigate and ultimately execute heretics, I suspect you're actually running an evil campaign and just don't know it.



Ronin.
Fundamentalist.
Merchant Marine.
Graduate of Miskatonic University.

If you want a game to be about a governing set of values, it's on you to ask if the players are in to that idea. Part of the task of matching the game to the players is on you - and forcing it on them leads to threads like this. If you don't have 100% buy in, don't do it. If you march in to session zero with a "my way or the highway" approach, you'll probably get some people that pay lipservice to the idea, but subvert it later. That's probably on you.

Might as well ban chaotic alignments, while you are at it.

Nothing is forced... the whole game is voluntary... unless you’re involved in some prison extra curricular program.

If I suggest a samurai caste campaign where the players would be Imperial Magistrates appointed by the Emperor to mediate disputes between the clans... the players can choose to go with this or not. The expectation of the campaign is that players must - be loyal to the Emperor; have the outward appearance of honour; choose a clan of ancestors; and be a class that fits with their clan’s samurai caste.

These are very specific requirements and seem to make perfect sense to me for a campaign about magistrates. I don’t see the problem.

The pitch is the ‘ask’ if the pitch is accepted then the players have been consulted. Assuming the pitch is accurate.

 

[ph0rk]

have the outward appearance of honour;

Already here, there's room for a player to make a character that cynically games the system - as their should be if that's what they want to do.

You could also add something like the emperor is known for executing those suspected of not being loyal. That's very different than demanding the players come up with characters that are already loyal.

If you want specific character values, roll up premades, but I'd wager people would lose interest more quickly than characters of their own design.

You have to know your players. If one of them finds a way to dismantle organized bureaucracies in every game they play - you need to be ready for that to be something they eventually turn their eye to. This isn't a play - it is a game.

 

[Don Durito]

Maybe the player is a person who recently left the LDS church or similar, and doesn't want to play a theistic character a that moment?

This seems like the sort of context dependent situation I was talking about earlier.

If this player is a member of a regular group of friends who game together then they should play something else.
If the player is signing up to an advertised game with strangers...well why are they signing up, and why should they expect the game to change for them?

 

[TheSword]

It depends.

If you want to, say, run a piracy game where the ship the players are on is essentially a slave ship - players would be right to bristle.

Maybe the player is a person who recently left the LDS church or similar, and doesn't want to play a theistic character a that moment?

Far better to have a handful of broad themes and poll the players to see which ones have more consensus interest - and really - why, precisely couldn't one play a nonbeliever in the game? What's the hard mechanical or narrative reason why?



100% this. "Religion is important" could mean many things - like a campaign where the organized religion in the area is burning witches or similar - the players are free to design characters that believe whatever they like there - but they likely suspect there will be a powerful organized religion institution playing a major role.

Skull and Shackles is a very highly regarded Paizo AP and it starts with PCs press ganged against their will on a pirate ship. Forced to do menial Labour or be cruelly punished...

... then the PCs mutiny and take the ship. It’s pretty awesome.

Why should players be right to bristle against this premise?

 

[ph0rk]

Skull and Shackles is a very highly regarded Paizo AP and it starts with PCs press ganged against their will on a pirate ship. Forced to do menial Labour or be cruelly punished...

... then the PCs mutiny and take the ship. It’s pretty awesome.

Why should players be right to bristle against this premise?

I mean they are crew on a slave ship. Not cargo.

If this player is a member of a regular group of friends who game together then they should play something else.
If the player is signing up to an advertised game with strangers...well why are they signing up, and why should they expect the game to change for them?

Fair, but dictating character values seems like a bad idea for a group of total strangers.

 

[TheSword]

Already here, there's room for a player to make a character that cynically games the system - as their should be if that's what they want to do.

You could also add something like the emperor is known for executing those suspected of not being loyal. That's very different than demanding the players come up with characters that are already loyal.

If you want specific character values, roll up premades, but I'd wager people would lose interest more quickly than characters of their own design.

You have to know your players. If one of them finds a way to dismantle organized bureaucracies in every game they play - you need to be ready for that to be something they eventually turn their eye to. This isn't a play - it is a game.

Wait... why are you forcing a choice between 100% self design with no steer on character type against premade character. That’s a very odd choice to force.

There’s nothing wrong with saying please make characters that are loyal to the Emperor - as you’ll be his servants.

No worse than saying we only play with good characters.

In our Way of the Wicked campaign we stated characters had to be LE or NE and must have a reason and be willing to overthrow the country and do evil things.

In our Curse of Strahd campaign we asked players to come with a character capable of being terrified.

Premade or 100% self determined is a false binary.

 

[Hussar]

Sure, take the quote of me that isn’t even an example of what you’re complaining about in this thread and I’ll drop it.

Sorry, but, "take the quote of me" and do what with it?